Ah, so your true opinion of scientific research is finally revealed. You go on and on about the logical need for a primum moven and when one is finally provided to you (fully defined) all you can do is harangue and toss out apsersions.

To be blunt, I don't like being lied to even if the the prevarication is wrapped in gilded art deco box. The author seeks to create unprovable, untestable conditions that he conjures into his imagination, and then proceeds to attempt to obfuscate that fact in purposefully stilted language. In essence, he creates a Universe and then goes backward and states that because there is a Universe, the singularity can exist, and then it in turns creates the Universe. Perfectly cyclical, completely illogical. It doesn't explain primum movens. Unless, of course you are suggesting that the singularity exists completely outside time and space, and then once again, you may as well say "God".

Quote:

And since when is providing a testable theory cyclical logic? The math and techniques needed may be beyond your capability, but that doesn't make them nonsensical. The math here is solvable. The predictions it makes are real-world testable. You are just to entrenched in your dogma to allow for the possibility that you have been wrong this whole time.

Again, complete fabrication. It is not testable, observable, or repeatable. Creating your own prexistant conditions and then inserting a singularity within a prexisting Universe is not primum movens.

Rather, it is simply explaining a phenomena within a prexisting Universe. Now, I don't really have a problem with this concept. I fully believe and understand the Universe is expanding. That is not a point of contention.

Quote:

I consider this matter settled. Not only have you been shown to be demonstrably in error, your intellectual dishonesty is now fully confirmed. Fare thee well, CavD... err, I mean Kingarthurhk.

You considered the matter settled before your started. And once again, interjecting ad hominum simply indicates the emotional investment you have in the argument, and your inability to properly reinforce your thesis.